DOCSLIB.ORG

Franco-Turkish Paper No.13

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Franco-Turkish Paper No.13 FFrraannccoo--TTuurrkkiisshh PPaa ppeerr NNoo..1133 ______________________________________________________________________ Turkey: the Sèvres syndrome, or the endless war ______________________________________________________________________ Dorothée SCHMID April 2015 . Contemporary Turkey Programme The Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) is France’s main independent centre for research, information and debate on major international issues. Founded in 1979 by Thierry de Montbrial, Ifri is a non-governmental and non-profit organization (associations Act of 1901). Ifri falls under no administrative supervision, publically sets its agenda and regularly publishes research papers. Using an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to host its debates and research activities. Along with its Brussels offices (Ifri Bruxelles), Ifri stands out as one of the rare French think tanks to position itself at the very heart of debate within Europe. The opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ alone and do not reflect the official views of their institutions ISBN : 978-2-36567-381-5 © Tous droits réservés, Ifri, 2015 Ifri Ifri-Bruxelles 27, rue de la Procession Rue Marie-Thérèse, 21 75740 Paris Cedex 15 – FRANCE 1000 – Bruxelles – BELGIQUE Tél. : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 00 Tél. : +32 (0)2 238 51 10 Fax : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 Fax : +32 (0)2 238 51 15 Email : [email protected] Email : [email protected] Website : Ifri.org Franco-Turkish Papers Ifri's Turkey programme aims to encourage dialogue between France and Turkey on areas of common interest. As part of the programme, Ifri publishes a series of "Notes on Franco-Turkish relations", which are written by experts from France, Turkey or elsewhere. The aim of these notes is to shed light on the key factors of the relationship between the two countries, but also on the major changes in modern-day Turkey and on regional issues. The notes conform to Ifri's usual quality standards (peer review and full editing). Editor: Dorothée Schmid 1 © Ifri Author Dorothée Schmid is a graduate of Sciences Po (Paris Institute of Political Studies) and holds a PhD in political science from Paris II (Pantheon-Assas University). She joined Ifri in 2002 as a specialist on EU policies in the Mediterranean region and the Middle East. Since 2008, Ms Schmid has run Ifri's Turkey programme, which focuses on internal politics in Turkey, the re-emergence of Turkish diplomacy, political transition and power relationships in the Middle East. She has worked as a consultant for several public bodies, NGOs and private companies. Ms Schmid appears regularly in the French and international media. 2 © Ifri Abstract For Turks, the Treaty of Sèvres symbolises the dissolution of the empire and the carving up of Turkey by foreign powers. The historic effect of the treaty survives as a syndrome, which explains the vision of a nation under siege struggling for survival. Apart from the current neo-Ottomanism, a reconsidered dialogue with Europe could perhaps provide the country with a new relationship with its history and help it move beyond a syndrome used by all sections of its political class. 3 © Ifri Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 5 THE FIRST WORLD WAR AS SEEN BY TURKEY ...................................... 6 Choosing its side ..................................................................................... 6 Sèvres, final stage of the loss ................................................................ 7 The national revival: Turkey, the paradoxical victor ............................ 8 EXTENSION OF THE SCOPE OF SÈVRES: TURKEY AS HOSTAGE ............ 10 Appearance and versions of Sèvres syndrome ................................. 10 Handing over the syndrome ................................................................. 12 The isolated country .............................................................................. 14 BYPASSING, EXTENDING, OR MOVING BEYOND SÈVRES: THE TURKISH DILEMMA .......................................................................................... 16 The syndrome and disease ................................................................... 16 The Neo-Ottoman path: bypassing Sèvres or moving beyond it ..... 17 4 © Ifri D. Schmid / Turkey: the Sevres syndrome Introduction This paper is the translation of Dorothee Schmid’s article published in French in Ifri’s journal Politique étrangère n°2014-1, special edition for the First World War Centenary. The First World War divided Europe from Turkey. This much is clear, while the commemoration of its centenary brings the Western European nations together in memory of a historical disaster which led to other eventually unifying events, for its part, Turkey conforms to a similar account: that of the birth of the modern Turkish nation from a defeated Ottoman empire. The nationalist impulse remains strong and in 2015 Turkey will celebrate the battle of the Dardanelles more than it will mark the memory of the Armenian genocide. Nevertheless, history is being cast off in the country nowadays against a background of endless questioning about identity. The factory of history has produced a positive, integrative narrative throughout the xxth century, overcoming the nightmare of the end of the Empire, sorting and putting events in order since the foundation of the Republic. However, faults are appearing here and there, and debates are unfolding about a past waiting to be discovered by many. Thus, questioning is emerging on an ongoing and founding historical theme of the modern Turkish collective consciousness: the Treaty of Sèvres, whose one-sided clauses were imposed on the Empire in 1920 by the victorious countries. A phantom treaty, replaced in 1923 by the Treaty of Lausanne, but which remains the starting point of a reflex of fear among Turks: the dread of betrayal and fear, commonly referred to by the expression "Sèvres syndrome." The infinite variations of Turkish political rhetoric around the subject of Sèvres now seem considerably anachronistic, and increasingly out of touch with the actual power balance, both regionally and in Turkey itself. The initial trauma, which was never overcome, and the memory of which was cultivated by successive political generations, perpetuates an obsession with security in Turkey. The survival of the syndrome and its tactical exploitation by some players in the government system are ultimately indicative of obstacles to Turkish democracy, which for a long time was confined in a paranoid self-segregation. 5 © Ifri D. Schmid / Turkey: the Sevres syndrome The First World War as seen by Turkey The First Word War left a particular imprint on Turkey, which is recorded for the Turks in a continuum of confrontations of several decades with the European powers and which continued until 1922. The Republic of Turkey, born from a reforming "war of independence", is the paradoxical winner of a war which ended the Empire. Choosing its side When it entered the First World War on the side of the Triple Alliance, the Ottoman Empire, which had been at war continuously against the national offensives of its provinces, was already very weak. Referred to as the "sick man of Europe" in 1853 by Tsar Nicolas Ist; it disintegrated under the anxious and interested eyes of the major European powers. The Young Turks of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), which took power in 1908, hastened the disaster by trying to restore an authoritarian centralism, and the two Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 had the effect of breaking off what remained of the Balkans from the Empire. Hence, before the war, the Turks had lost almost all of European Turkey and they only kept eastern Thrace to the west of the straits. This accelerated contraction of Ottoman territory was alarming and it had serious consequences: large-scale massacres hastened the return of hundreds of thousands of Muslims from the Balkans to Anatolia and influenced the balance of power. The spectre of final dismantlement emerged and the melting-pot of Turkish nationalism was at boiling point. Therefore, it was under conditions of extreme weakness and high volatility that the Empire entered into the great conflict of European imperialism in November 1914. Which side should it be on? The history of its European friendships was full of reversals1, and the CUP was divided, but the 1. For the detailed and complex relationships between the European and Ottoman powers, see J.-F. Solnon, Le Turban et la Stambouline. L’Empire ottoman et 6 © Ifri D. Schmid / Turkey: the Sevres syndrome main enemy at this time was Russia, which precipitated the fall of the Balkans and coveted the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits. The ambitions of France and Great Britain in the Middle East posed another threat and their financial control brought the Empire economically to its knees. Germany, which was responsible for modernising the Ottoman army, appeared as the only natural friend. It was a CUP driven by an expansionist nationalist dream, now turned towards central Asia and anxious to consolidate its power, which initiated hostilities against Russia. The war would only be a series of disasters for the Turks, with the exception of the Battle of the Dardanelles. Their heroic resistance at Gallipoli, as demonstrated by Lieutenant-Colonel Kemal Atatürk then promoted to "pasha" (general) probably delayed the end of the conflict
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Impact of Batumi on Turkish-Georgian Relations During the Period of National Struggle
    Kafkasya Calışmaları - Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / Journal of Caucasian Studies Kasım 2019 / November 2019, Yıl / Vol. 5, № 9 ISSN 2149–9527 E-ISSN 2149–9101 The Impact of Batumi on Turkish-Georgian Relations During The Period of National Struggle Buket Elmas* Abstract The future of Batumi, which was occupied by the British by the Mondros Armistice Agreement (October 30, 1918), has occupied the agenda of the Ankara Government for a long time during the National Struggle Period. The Turkish side tried to maintain its existence in Batumi against the British, Georgian and Russian threat and aimed to keep the "Elviye-i Selase" in Turkish territory. In terms of both strategically and, the Turkish and Muslim population living in the region, Batumi has been a priority issue for the Turkish side and played an important role in shaping Turkish-Georgian relations during the National Struggle, from the Mondros Armistice Agreement to the Treaty of Kars. Keywords: Mondros Armistice Agreement, Batumi, Elviye-i Selase, National Struggle, Ankara Government. Milli Mücadele Döneminde Batum’un Türk-Gürcü İlişkilerine Etkisi Özet Mondros Ateşkes Antlaşması ile İngilizler tarafından işgal edilen Batum'un geleceği konusu, Milli Mücadele döneminde Ankara hükümetinin gündemini uzun süre meşgul etmiştir. İngiliz, Gürcü ve Rus tehdidine karşı Türk tarafı Batum'daki varlığını sürdürmek üzere gayret göstermiş ve "Elviye-i Selase"nin Türk topraklarında kalmasını amaçlamıştır. Hem stratejik olarak hem de bölgede yaşayan Türk ve Müslüman nüfus açısından Batum, Türk tarafı için öncelikli bir mesele olmuş, Milli Mücadele süresince, Mondros Ateşkes Antlaşması'ndan Kars Antlaşması'na kadar geçen sürede Türk-Gürcü ilişkilerini şekillendirmede önemli rol oynamıştır.
    [Show full text]
  • The Last Phase
    The Eastern Question: THE LAST PHASE A STUDY IN GREEK-TURKISH DIPLOMACY Harry J. Psomiades Queens College and The Graduate School The City University of New York With an Introduction by Van Coufoudakis THE EASTERN QUESTION: THE LAST PHASE A STUDY IN GREEK-TURKISH DIPLOMACY The Eastern Question: The Last Phase A STUDY IN GREEK-TURKISH DIPLOMACY Harry J. Psomiades Queens College and the Graduate School The City University of New York With an Introduction by Van Coufoudakis PELLA PELLA PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. New York, NY 10018-6401 This book was published for The Center for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Queens College of the City University of New York, which bears full editorial responsibility for its contents. MODERN GREEK RESEARCH SERIES, IX, SEPTEMBER 2000 THE EASTERN QUESTION: THE LAST PHASE Second Edition © Copyright 2000 The Center for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Queens College of the City University of New York Flushing, NY 11367-0904 All rights reserved Library of Congress Control Number 00-134738 ISBN 0-918618-79-7 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY ATHENS PRINTING COMPANY 337 West 36th Street New York, NY 10018-6401 To Kathy and Christine Acknowledgments The Eastern Question: The Last Phase has been out of print for some years, although it has survived the test of time and continues to be widely quoted by scholars dealing with the vital decade of the twenties in Greek-Turkish relations. As a result of continued demand for the book and its usefulness for understanding the present in Greek-Turkish relations, it is being presented here in a second printing, but with a new introduction by Professor Van Coufoudakis, in the Modern Greek Research Series of the Queens College Center for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Treaty of Kars
    Treaty of Kars (Treaty of Friendship between Turkey, the Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia, the Azerbaijan Socialist Soviet Republic, and the Socialist Soviet Republic of Georgia) Done in Kars, October 23, 1921 Ratified in Yerevan, September 11, 1922 (Original in French and Russian) The Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, on the one side, and the Governments of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia (SSRA), the Azerbaijan Socialist Soviet Republic (ASSR), and the Socialist Soviet Republic of Georgia (SSRG), on the other side, Agreeing on the principle of the fraternity of the nations and on the right of the peoples to dispose freely of their destiny; desirous to establish cordial affinity and sincerely amicable relations between them, based upon reciprocal interest; Have decided to enter into negotiations, with the participation of the Government of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR), to conclude a Treaty of Friendship and for this purpose have appointed as their plenipotentiaries: The Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey: Kiazim Kara Bekir Pasha, Deputy to the Grand National Assembly from Adrianople and Commander of the Eastern Front; Veli Bey, Deputy to the Grand National Assembly from Bordour; Mouhtar Bey, former Undersecretary of State for Public Works; Memdouh Shevket Bey, Turkish Plenipoteniary Representative in Azerbaijan; The Government of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia: Askanaz Mravian, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs; Poghos Makintsian, People's Commissar
    [Show full text]
  • Nato Mw Report 2004-2005
    Final Report - Manfred Wörner Fellowship 2004 / 2005 Prospects For Regional Cooperation on NATO’s South Eastern Border Developing a Turkish-Russian Cooperation in South Caucasus Submitted on 30 June 2005 By Dr. Burcu Gültekin Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris Turkish-Armenian Business Development Council In consultation with the Economy & Conflict Research Group of South Caucasus (ECRG) / International Alert 1 Acknowledgments This report has been possible thanks to NATO’s Manfred Wörner fellowship. I am profoundly grateful to the Public Diplomacy Division at NATO Headquarters, notably to Deputy Assistant Secretary General for External Relations Dr. Jamie Shea and to Dr. Stefanie Babst, Head of NATO Countries Section. My special thanks go to Despina Afentouli, Information Officer Greece and responsible for South Caucasus, whose friendly support has been particularly valuable throughout all the research process, and to Ioanna Synadino. I have benefited from conversations with Robert Simmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Security Cooperation and Partnership and with Amb. Daniel Speckhard, Director of Policy Planning at the Office of the Secretary General. My deep thanks go to Ünal Çeviköz, Ambassador of Turkey to Bagdat, who has actively supported my work on the South Caucasus for many years and to Ertan Tezgör, Ambassador of Turkey to Tbilisi for his continuous help and multiple in-depth discussions during my research in Tbilisi. Brigadier General Muzaffer Çarpan, Turkish Armed Forces Attaché at the Turkish Embassy in Tbilisi, David Sikarulidze, Deputy Minister of Defense of Georgia and General Melkunian from the Ministry of Defense of Armenia have been gracious with their time and insights. I am grateful to Henry Cuny, Ambassador of France to Yerevan for his valuable support to my Turkish-Armenian initiatives, and to Amb.
    [Show full text]
  • “Legal Claims for the Armenian Genocide”
    Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid Universiteit Gent Academiejaar 2016-2017 “Legal Claims for the Armenian Genocide” Masterproef van de opleiding ‘Master in de rechten’ Ingediend door Nadya Movsisyan (01103299) Promotor: Prof. dr. Tom Ruys Commissaris: Hofer Alexandra 1 2 Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank my promotor Prof. dr. Tom Ruys for giving me the opportunity to work on a subject so close to my heart and guiding me through the entire process. I would also like to express my gratitude towards Dr. Rouben Adalian, Director of the Armenian National Institute in Washington D.C., for granting me access to the rich library established by the Armenian National Institute and for mentoring me during my internship at the Armenian National Institute. Further, I would like to thank my parents for giving me the chance to do something I love and my siblings for their support. As a Belgian citizen with an Armenian background, I have always been very interested in the history of my ancestors. The Armenian Genocide is a big stain in the Armenian history. My interest in this matter grew after visiting the homeland of my ancestors, set in current Turkey. I had never expected that my visit to Eastern-Turkey would leave such an impact on me and would influence my interests and goals with regard to my future career. As a law student, I had difficulties accepting that Turkey not only remained unpunished for its crime, but also continued to enjoy the fruits of its crime. This journey made me see the Armenian Genocide in another perspective, the legal consequences of the Armenian Genocide.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey's Game for the Caucasus
    OswcOMMentary issue 29 | 05.10.2009 | ceNTRe fOR eAsTeRN sTudies Turkey’s game for the Caucasus Maciej Falkowski NTARy Me The foreign ministries of Turkey, Armenia and Switzerland (the latter having ces cOM mediated in talks between the former two) reported on 31 August that two protocols envisaging the establishment of Turkish-Armenian relations and the opening of the border between the two countries had been developed. tudies In turn, on 28 September, the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan s promised that diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia would be established on 10 October. Although Turkish diplomacy is likely to succeed astern in this task, chances for a full normalisation of relations are low. The risk e of the internal situation in Armenia becoming destabilised, resistance from nationalist circles in Turkey and staunch opposition from Azerbaijan, the unresolved conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and the ambiguous stance entre for Russia has taken will all impede the normalisation of bilateral relations. c The process of normalising Turkish-Armenian relations which has been ob- served over the past year is the most important element of Turkey’s new policy towards the Caucasus, which it has launched since last year’s Rus- NTARy sian-Georgian war. Its priorities include enhancing co-operation with all co- Me untries in the region, reducing Turkey’s dependence on Azerbaijan’s interests, and Ankara’s attempts to mediate in the resolution of conflicts in the Cau- ces cOM casus. Although Turkey’s active policy towards the Caucasus has enabled it to present itself as an independent player, capable of dictating the tempo of the game in the region, its ability to maintain long-term influence will depend on the reaction from the Caucasian countries, Russia and the West tudies s to its activity, rather than on Ankara’s determination alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Kars Conference: Known and Unknown Facts
    Our history Kars conference: Known and unknown Jamil HASANLI facts Doctor of History, Professor THE RUssIAN-TURKISH TREATY SIGNED IN MOSCOW ON 16 MARCH 1921 was AN IMPORTANT VICTORY FOR TURKISH DI- PLOMACY. UNDER THIS TREATY, NOT ONLY DID TURKEY NOT LOSE TERRITORY as A MEMBER OF THE BLOC DEFEATED IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR, IT ALSO MANagED TO RECOVER SOME OF THE TERRITORY IT HAD LOST. The Treaty of Moscow signified the that in the best case scenario, the So- should take a single position at the failure of the Treaty of Serves, which viet republics of the South Caucasus forthcoming conference. The deci- Western states had imposed on Tur- would endorse the Treaty of Moscow sion said that the Treaty of Moscow key. As far as Azerbaijan’s fate is con- as a legal document during the Kars should form the basis of the talks to cerned, the Treaty of Moscow was a conference.1 Moscow was using all be held with Turkey and the treaty to political-legal solution to the issue of means to ensure that the South Cau- be signed.2 This idea was later con- Nakhichevan. casus republics act as a single team firmed by the RFSFR Commissar of Having lost hope after the Treaty of at the conference. To this end, the Foreign Affairs Chicherin in an official Moscow and the discussions in Baku foreign ministers of all three republics note to the Turkish ambassador in and Tiflis in April 1921 that Azerbaijan were summoned to Tiflis on 7 May Moscow. In his opinion, the treaty had will be conducting an independent 1921.
    [Show full text]
  • Armenian Relocation and International Law
    ARMENIAN RELOCATION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW (ERMENİ TEHCİRİ VE ULUSLARARASI HUKUK) Yılmaz ERACAR1 Abstract: Discussions on the Armenian incidents of 1915 relates to history and are not legal subject matters. Thus, any discussion on the matter should be considered and limited in the context of general social sciences research methodology. This is because the 1948 Genocide Convention is not applicable ex post facto. Armenian relocation also does not qualify as crime against humanity under the customary law because of the statute of limitations first, and also, because the relocation decision was taken under imperative military reasons. Keywords: Armenian Relocation, international law, customary law, 1948 Genocide Convention, genocide, Ottoman Empire Öz: 1915 Ermeni olaylarına ilişkin tartışmalar hukukun konusu değil tarihsel tartışmalardır. Nitekim, konu hakkında herhangi bir tartışma yapılacaksa bu genel sosyal bilimler araştırma metodolojisi içerisinde düşünülmeli ve kapsamda ele alınmalıdır. Bunun sebebi 1948 Soykırım Sözleşmesi’nin geçmişe uygulanabilirliğinin (ex post facto) mümkün olmamasıdır. Ermeni tehciri, birinci olarak zamanaşımı kuralı, ve ikinci olarak tehcir kararının zaruri askeri sebeplerle alınmış olmasından dolayı teamül hukuku çerçevesinde insanlığa karşı suç olarak da görülemez. Anahtar Kelimeler: Ermeni tehciri, uluslararası hukuk, teamül hukuku, 1948 Soykırım Sözleşmesi, soykırım, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu 1 N. Yılmaz Eracar has worked as an independent financial counselor since 1980. Formerly, he was the Acting First President of the Tax Supreme Court from 1977 to 1978 in Ankara. In 1955, Mr. Eracar graduated from Ankara University with a B. A. in Political Science. In 1969, he earned a M. A. in Economics from the State University of New York at Binghamton while working as a tax inspector for the Ministry of Finance.
    [Show full text]
  • Chained to the Caucasus: Peacemaking in Karabakh, 1987–2012
    Chained to the Caucasus: Peacemaking in Karabakh, 1987–2012 Philip Remler Chained to the Caucasus: Peacemaking in Karabakh, 1987–2012 Philip Remler International Peace Institute, 777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017 www.ipinst.org © 2016 by International Peace Institute All rights reserved. Published 2016. About the Author: Philip Remler is a retired US diplomat who served with the US Department of State and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). His overseas posts included Ankara, Baku, Chi in u, Groznyy, Iraqi Kurdist an, Moscow, and Tbilisi. In addition to hisş extendedă involvement with the Karabakh conflict and with OSCE-led efforts to mediate it, he reported on and/or participated in peace negotiations on the Abkhazia, Chechnya, South Ossetia, and Transdniestria conflicts. Cover Photo: Armenian and Karabakh armed forces hold joint military exercises at a training ground near the town of Tigranakert in Karabakh, November 14, 2014. Getty Images/Karen Minasyan. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper represent those of the author and not necessarily those of the International Peace Institute (IPI). IPI welcomes consideration of a wide range of perspectives in the pursuit of a well-informed debate on critical policies and issues in international affairs. IPI owes a debt of gratitude to its many generous donors, whose contributions make publications like this one possible. In particular, IPI would like to thank the government of Switzerland. ISBN: 0-937722-81-2 ISBN-13: 978-0-937722-81-7 CONTENTS Foreword . v Acknowledgements . vii Acronyms . viii Introduction. 1 1. The Social and Political Origins of the Karabakh Conflict .
    [Show full text]
  • The Relations of Istanbul and Ankara Within the Press of Turkish National Struggle (1918-1922)
    THE RELATIONS OF İSTANBUL AND ANKARA WITHIN THE PRESS OF TURKISH NATIONAL STRUGGLE (1918-1922) A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY ALİ DEMİREL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY JULY 2018 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof. Dr. Tülin Gençöz Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts. Prof. Dr. Ömer Turan Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts. (Title and Name) Prof. Dr. Ömer Turan Co-Supervisor Supervisor Examining Committee Members Prof. Dr. Mustafa Yılmaz (Hacettepe Uni., AİT) Prof. Dr. Ömer Turan (METU, HIST) Assist. Prof. Dr. Akile Zorlu Durukan (METU, HIST) Appendix D. Sample Plagiarism Page I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last name : Ali Demirel Signature : iii ABSTRACT THE RELATIONS OF İSTANBUL AND ANKARA WITHIN THE PRESS OF TURKISH NATIONAL STRUGGLE (1918-1922) Demirel, Ali M.A., Department of History Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ömer Turan July 2018, 305 Pages The basic goal of this thesis is to analyze the relations of the Turkish Nationalists with the İstanbul Governments, the Allied powers and also Soviet Russia during the Turkish National Struggle with a special focus on the religious-judicial and military- political legitimacy of the National movement as reflected in the newspapers published in İstanbul and Anatolia.
    [Show full text]
  • ANN/Groong -- Treaty of Berlin - 07/13/1878
    ANN/Groong -- Treaty of Berlin - 07/13/1878 Armenian News Network / Groong Treaty of Kars (Treaty of Friendship between Turkey, the Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia, the Azerbaijan Socialist Soviet Republic, and the Socialist Soviet Republic of Georgia) Done in Kars, October 23, 1921 Ratified in Yerevan, September 11, 1922 (Original in French and Russian) The Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, on the one side, and the Governments of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia (SSRA), the Azerbaijan Socialist Soviet Republic (ASSR), and the Socialist Soviet Republic of Georgia (SSRG), on the other side, Agreeing on the principle of the fraternity of the nations and on the right of the peoples to dispose freely of their destiny; desirous to establish cordial affinity and sincerely amicable relations between them, based upon reciprocal interest; Have decided to enter into negotiations, with the participation of the Government of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR), to conclude a Treaty of Friendship and for this purpose have appointed as their plenipotentiaries: The Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey: Kiazim Kara Bekir Pasha, Deputy to the Grand National Assembly from Adrianople and Commander of the Eastern Front; Veli Bey, Deputy to the Grand National Assembly from Bordour; Mouhtar Bey, former Undersecretary of State for Public Works; Memdouh Shevket Bey, Turkish Plenipoteniary Representative in Azerbaijan; The Government of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia: Askanaz Mravian,
    [Show full text]
  • How the Treaty of Kars Was Signed (March Through October, 1921) (Tarihe Kisa Bir Bakiş: Kars Antlaşmasi Nasil Imzalandi (Mart-Ekim 1921)?)
    A GLIMPSE OF HISTORY: HOW THE TREATY OF KARS WAS SIGNED (MARCH THROUGH OCTOBER, 1921) (TARİHE KISA BİR BAKIŞ: KARS ANTLAŞMASI NASIL İMZALANDI (MART-EKİM 1921)?) Dr. Natalia Yu. ULCHENKO Head of the Department of Turkish Studies, Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, 12 Rozhdestvenka St., Moscow, RF Abstract: The signing of the Treaty of Kars was not a simple follow-up to the signing of the Treaty of Moscow (1921). Although the Treaty of Kars took the Treaty of Moscow as a template for many of its provisions, prior to the treaties, many considerations were made both by Turkey and Soviet Russia regarding the outlook on Transcaucasia and each other’s intentions. During this time, Turkey was forced to make a defining choice between choosing the support of either Western powers or Soviet Russia. It was also reluctant to let go of the gains it acquired from the Treaty of Alexandropol, which the Treaty of Kars would replace. Meanwhile, Soviet Russia viewed Turkey’s hesitation on this issue with suspicion. The author indicates that in the end, both countries viewed stable and friendly relations between each other as paramount, and the signing of both the Treaties of Moscow and Kars were seen as a pledge to maintain such positive relations. Abstract: Soviet Russia, Turkey, Treaty of Moscow, Treaty of Kars, Treaty of Alexandropol Öz: Kars Antlaşmasının imzalanması 1921 Moskova Antlaşmasının basit bir devamı niteliğinde değildi. Kars Antlaşması pek çok maddesi için Moskova Antlaşmasını örnek almış olsa da, antlaşmaların imzalanmasının öncesinde, hem Türkiye hem de Sovyetler Birliği Transkafkasya’nın durumu ve birbirlerinin niyetleri konularında pek çok hususu dikkate almıştır.
    [Show full text]